While the numeric vote leans towards keep, the strength of arguments does not. Many of the Keep votes incorrectly claim that
WP:NTENNIS is met, or that anyone who participates in any international sports competition is automatically notable. No sources that demonstrate GNG being met were presented. No rationale given on the NAC, and the closer hasn't responded in several days on their talk page.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 19:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Agreed. It was a non-administrative closing and they may have simply counted !votes. It does not come close to meeting WP:NTENNIS, so those arguments are wrong. It does not meet
WikiProject Tennis Guidelines either. As I said in the original discussion, it could be that she meets GNG but no rational was given by the closer on that potential. She is not notable for anything she has done in tennis.
Fyunck(click) (
talk) 19:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
This is one of several NACs discussed at
the closer's UTP and it's concerning that they've continued to edit without responding.
Lev!vich 20:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn. Revert the BADNAC. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 20:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
An experienced closer should review. I can see that some might see a rough consensus to delete, but in cases like this where late !votes are entirely contrary to the early trend, some effort should be made to avoid the appearance of super-Wikipedians summarily overruling the less experienced.
Overturn to delete. I relisted this AfD a week ago with a request for some sources that would prove that this subject meets either the
GNG or
NTENNIS. Since then, no sources were presented, and the only arguments made were that she did not meet those notability criteria. Accordingly, I would have closed this as delete. I can understand why this mistake was made, as a simple count of the bolded words would lead one to believe the keeps have it, but the comments that are actually based in policy and precedent carry significantly more weight. –
bradv🍁 21:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete The keep !votes based their entire claim on the subject meeting either NTENNIS or more generally NSPORT. However, these claims were either erroneous or offered no specific evidence. None attempted to offer any evidence that GNG was met. Textbook example of a BADNAC.
CThomas3 (
talk) 21:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete- on the grounds that no amount of factually inaccurate votes should be able to outweigh any amount of correct ones.
ReykYO! 08:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn I don't have a preference as to whether this is overturned to a specific outcome, but the BADNAC definitely needs to be overturned. There are at least a couple votes which claim NTENNIS is met, though GNG may not be, so needs to be rebalanced by a new closer, or relisted.
SportingFlyerT·C 10:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
While the numeric vote leans towards keep, the strength of arguments does not. Many of the Keep votes incorrectly claim that
WP:NTENNIS is met, or that anyone who participates in any international sports competition is automatically notable. No sources that demonstrate GNG being met were presented. No rationale given on the NAC, and the closer hasn't responded in several days on their talk page.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 19:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Agreed. It was a non-administrative closing and they may have simply counted !votes. It does not come close to meeting WP:NTENNIS, so those arguments are wrong. It does not meet
WikiProject Tennis Guidelines either. As I said in the original discussion, it could be that she meets GNG but no rational was given by the closer on that potential. She is not notable for anything she has done in tennis.
Fyunck(click) (
talk) 19:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
This is one of several NACs discussed at
the closer's UTP and it's concerning that they've continued to edit without responding.
Lev!vich 20:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn. Revert the BADNAC. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 20:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
An experienced closer should review. I can see that some might see a rough consensus to delete, but in cases like this where late !votes are entirely contrary to the early trend, some effort should be made to avoid the appearance of super-Wikipedians summarily overruling the less experienced.
Overturn to delete. I relisted this AfD a week ago with a request for some sources that would prove that this subject meets either the
GNG or
NTENNIS. Since then, no sources were presented, and the only arguments made were that she did not meet those notability criteria. Accordingly, I would have closed this as delete. I can understand why this mistake was made, as a simple count of the bolded words would lead one to believe the keeps have it, but the comments that are actually based in policy and precedent carry significantly more weight. –
bradv🍁 21:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete The keep !votes based their entire claim on the subject meeting either NTENNIS or more generally NSPORT. However, these claims were either erroneous or offered no specific evidence. None attempted to offer any evidence that GNG was met. Textbook example of a BADNAC.
CThomas3 (
talk) 21:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete- on the grounds that no amount of factually inaccurate votes should be able to outweigh any amount of correct ones.
ReykYO! 08:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn I don't have a preference as to whether this is overturned to a specific outcome, but the BADNAC definitely needs to be overturned. There are at least a couple votes which claim NTENNIS is met, though GNG may not be, so needs to be rebalanced by a new closer, or relisted.
SportingFlyerT·C 10:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.